Approval of May 9, 2016, Public Hearing Minutes: Mr.
Appelhanz moved to approve the May 9, 2016, Public Hearing minutes,
seconded by Mr. Desch, and with a unanimous voice vote, the minutes were
approved.

Communications:
Mr. Beagle provided an excerpt from the Shawnee County Planning Commission
Bylaws concerning the making of motions. A question was raised during the May
meeting about how to best frame motions and how to take the vote. Josh Smith would
also provide some additional information. Mr. Beagle then introduced Josh
Smith, the newest member of the County Counselor’s office.

Ex Parte Communication by
Members of the Commission: There were no Ex Parte
communications expressed by members of the Commission.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest by Members of
the Commission or Staff: There were no declarations of conflict
of interest by commission members or staff.

Zoning and
Subdivision Items:

1.Z16/03
by Tarwater Real Estate, LLC requesting to amend the District Zoning
Classification from “RR‑1” Residential Reserve District, “C-2” Commercial
District and “C‑4” Commercial District to “PUD” Planned Unit Development
District on property located at 4019 and 4109 NW Topeka Boulevard in Soldier
Township.

Mr. Beagle provided an overview
of the Staff Report as submitted. The proposed reclassification is sought to
accommodate expansion of the existing Tarwater Farm & Home Supply business.
Mr. Beagle said the proposed expansion would provide additional product
warehouse space and improve internal traffic circulation by separating truck
traffic from customer traffic. To accomplish these objectives, the applicant
has chosen to consolidate zoning under the PUD District and include two use
group categories. The first area comprises 15.18-acres designated the C-4
Commercial District and would accommodate construction of a new product
warehouse building and a new separate truck entrance on NW Topeka Blvd. The
second area to the rear comprises 1.78-acres and designated the RR-1 District
and reserved as open space. The proposed reclassification results in the
isolation of 4.14-acres to the rear that is to be sold to Mark and Deborah
Moeder at 4022 NW Rochester Road. The
project would be completed in two phases. Phase One included selling the 4.14 acres
to the Moeders, demolishing the house at 4019, constructing a new truck
entrance, relocating the lawn mower display area and removing the second
existing drive entrance. Phase Two included demolishing the original retail
store and replacing it with expanded off street parking and the new product
warehouse.

The business was located in a
low density residential neighborhood. Commercial zoning and development was confined
to the southeast corner of 43rd and Topeka Blvd. Other commercial
zoning existed but was developed as residential. There was no indication the
area was transitioning from residential to commercial land use.

Tarwaters originated in the 1950s
and had a long established history in the community. It predated the adoption
of County zoning. Various zoning actions had expanded it to 5.42 acres with C‑2/C-4
zoning. Their mid‑block location was not consistent with today’s commercial
zoning but had not deterred the building of area homes.

Staff was recommending a
variance for Buildings 1 and 2. Currently, they met the 10 foot side yard
setback required by C‑2/C‑4 zoning. With the PUD, they would encroach
into the new required 30 foot setback.

Staff didn’t find the lateral expansion of commercial zoning to result
in any greater conflict with the surrounding area. Staff was recommending the
proposed reclassification be approved subject to the site’s use/development in
accordance with the recorded Master PUD Plan and the variance be granted.

Ms. McKenzie asked if the
Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Beagle.

Mr. Desch asked if the PUD included
a time sensitive requirement for building. Mr. Beagle stated a suggested
phasing schedule was included as to the property’s future improvement.

Mr. Macfee asked if the variance
required a separate motion. Mr. Beagle said a variance note was included on
the PUD but they would have to take action to grant it.

Mr. Desch asked about the sign located in the right of way. Mr. Beagle
said the sign south of the primary entrance was in the right of way. A PUD
Plan note stated the applicant would prefer the sign be retained up until such
time that either the roadway was expanded or Public Works asked for it to be
removed.

Mr. Macfee asked about the
septic systems and the Health Agency’s responsibilities. Mr. Beagle
stated the Health Agency and other county departments/townships were asked to
comment and add any special requirements needed. The existing lateral field to
the rear of the property that serves the existing retail store was not proposed
to be changed; however the new building’s septic system would need
review/approval. He wasn’t anticipating any issues to come up.

Mr. Desch requested information about
the detention pond. Mr. Beagle said a storm water detention pond was proposed
but deferred to Mr. Boyd for comment.

·One sign was placed at the southeast corner of the retail
building and a pylon sign was placed further north out of the right of way. A
subdivision plat was submitted to the City. With additional right of way being
dedicated, the larger sign would be entirely within the street right of way. They
negotiated with Public Works to allow the sign to remain until Phase 2
construction.

·He spoke with Andy Graham about the lateral fields needed for the
new building. They would still need to go through the permitting process and a
perc test would be needed.

·A storm water report was submitted to the City as part of the
platting process. One was submitted to Shawnee County Public Works. A
concrete box underneath Topeka Blvd. had the capacity to take all water coming
off the site. From the City’s standpoint, the quality component of storm water
was what prompted them to show a location for a detention/treatment facility. It
would be a dry detention pond. In order to meet quality calculations, they planned
for an engineered rain garden type swale containment that would handle the low
flow.

·There were still a lot of things they needed to review before
they could determine how it was all going to fit together.

Richard
Tarwater, 4107 NW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66617.

Ms. McKenzie inquired about the
lights, truck entrance and the proposed timeline. Mr. Tarwater said wall
pack lighting would be used and possibly located by the mowers. Six or seven trucks
came daily and no increase was anticipated. Semis and cars moved in the same
path of traffic. A few minor accidents had happened. The intention was to
make it easier for everyone to get in and out. He wanted to get things done
quickly and hoped to tear the house down first.

Mr. Macfee asked about the
proposed display area, the plans for the west area and the new building’s use.
Mr. Tarwater wouldn’t know anything until everything was laid out. 20‑25
foot of display area would be lost. He wanted to get product further off the
road and keep the grass for mowers to sit on. He wanted a neater and cleaner
appearance. The west area would be kept open for the trucks to travel through
and for parking (trailers/company-employee vehicles). No retail items would be
placed in the back. The new building would be used to store existing product.

Mr. Desch was concerned about the
Planning Commission approving the PUD without all the details. Mr. Beagle
stated they tried to anticipate all the issues. In this instance, the lighting
was not specified. Items could be defined and included as part of the PUD. Site
drainage would be reviewed along with the Plat. An onsite drainage report would
be required upon application for a building permit. A note was already
included regarding the sign in the right of way. Public Works had also requested
the product display encroaching in the right of way be moved.

With no additional questions and
no one to speak in favor, Ms. McKenzie asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition.

Richard
and Sonia Tolbert, 4014 NW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66617.

·When house was purchased 20 years ago, it was a residential
area. Their property was across the street from Tarwaters. Have been making
improvements to their home/land.

·Spent approximately $5,000 cleaning the pond up from the runoff
draining off the road.

·Spoke with the neighbors on the south side of the hedge and they were
not opposed.

·A surveyor had reviewed the plans and items weren’t specific.

·Asked about the swales and wanted to know how it was going to
drain.

·With the collection pond, understood there would be some runoff
if there was a heavy rain but thought it would be worse if they added more
concrete and moved buildings out.

·Had discussed the plans with other neighbors. Some could not attend
meeting. Brought a letter for the Commission from one of the property owners.

·Not happy when speed limit was changed. A number of wrecks had
occurred since. Had replaced seven mailboxes since 1996.

Ms. McKenzie for rebuttal
comments from the applicant.

Mr. Boyd said the retail
operation would not expand and didn’t anticipate an increase in traffic. They
wanted to separate traffic to make it safer for patrons to get in/out easier.
Business might increase due to those who had been deterred. The surface
drainage started north at the crest of the hill and came down and drained into
the reinforced concrete box. Drainage patterns would not change. Building the detention was due to the storm water
quality aspect of the storm water management plan. The size was based on the
new construction. The water would go into the detention and be released at no
greater rate than the present. It would be designed to slow the water down. In
a lot of cases, it would be an improvement. The parking lot design would
include curbing and inlets to trap most of the water. The erosion at
the Tolberts was going to happen regardless of what happened at the business.

Commissioners requested
information regarding the trucks/truck entrance. Mr. Tarwater said a closed
gate system was used so no trucks could enter at night. Business hours were 8 a.m.-6
p.m. Six to eight full‑sized semis came in per day. At certain times of
the year, there might be ten. The number had been consistent for quite some
time. Taking trucks any time after 4:30-5:00 was avoided because they couldn’t
be unloaded in time. Currently, semis waited on Topeka Blvd. when customers
were backing out. With the PUD, cars/semis would have their own entrances/exits.
Hopefully, accidents would be eliminated. Truck numbers would not increase. The
retail location would remain with no increase in retail space. Only the warehousing
was being changed.

Commissioners requested
information regarding drainage. Mr. Boyd said the City and Public Works were
reviewing the drainage report. A determination from their review was not known.
The runoff would increase but the volume of water going to the location would
stay the same. Drainage patterns would not change. The runoff from the new
parking area by the product warehouse would get there faster so a detention would
be put in to slow it down. It couldn’t leave the site at a faster release than
what was currently happening. A detention structure was included but mostly
for water quality. There would be some engineered soils. They were designed
to take a one and two year rainfall event and let it percolate through to clean
the water before it was released. It would give them opportunities to capture
water and direct it into the right place. By spreading some things out, there
was a plan to turn some concrete and driveways back to as much green space as
possible.

Mr. Macfee asked if hard surface
would be installed. Mr. Boyd said anything rock or gravel was considered hard
surface. He didn’t anticipate it being all concrete. The driveways and
parking areas would be hard surfaced.

Mr. Tarwater said there was a place in front of their gates where semis
could park at night. He didn’t see that changing. There was a lot of water
runoff but it wasn’t all from their business. The ditch in front of 4019 was
very deep and could not be covered like the other ditch. The runoff came from
both sides from the south and north all the way from the top of the hill from
the convenience store and came down to that area. He didn’t think it would be
any more and might be less.

Mr. Beagle asked if the location of the proposed truck entrance was to
be gated. Mr. Tarwater said yes but wasn’t sure about the location. The
existing fence would have to be moved approximately 20 foot off the roadway. He
didn’t want to lose any more space than needed. A decorative fence would be
placed in the front. The sign would be moved first since it was too close to
Topeka Blvd.

Ms. McKenzie asked if a truck
could pull into the driveway with the gate further back on the property. Mr. Tarwater
said they couldn’t at the new entrance. They could park in front of the north
entrance because the ditch was covered in concrete. They might stop when they realize
they will have to turn around to get into the south entrance.

Mr. Macfee asked if the fence was
noted on the PUD. Mr. Beagle didn’t think so but they could request the
fence and gate locations be noted. He asked if there would be any problem in
amending the site plan to reflect the type of fence and gate at the truck
entrance. Mr. Tarwater had no problem.

The Tolberts delivered a letter
from Michael and Karen Monreal, Sr., 4022 NW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66617. They
were unable to attend. The Monreals were completely and fully opposed to the
request. It would greatly affect the value of their property, possibly
increase the traffic and the unknown affect it would have on any and all
underground water streams. They were also unaware of the drainage work that
was done and they now have standing water in their front yard. Maybe a full
and complete study was needed as to the overall effect of Tarwaters putting in
what they are calling a storm water management facility and what the purpose
was for them needing it.

Ms. McKenzie closed the
public hearing and asked for comments from the Commissioners.

The Commissioners expressed
concern about the PUD being incomplete. Questions were raised regarding the possible
impacts (fence, gates, lighting, hours of delivery, traffic, truck parking and
drainage water issue) on the neighborhood and if they should be included in the
PUD. Also, they spoke about possibly continuing the item to wait for results from
the drainage review. Some discussion covered the difference between a PUD and
a CUP. It was determined that additional information was needed from the
applicant in order to incorporate additional items in the PUD.

Ms. McKenzie asked if there was
a motion to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Jacques moved to reopen the public
hearing; seconded by Mr. Macfee; and with a
unanimous voice vote, the public hearing was reopened.

Ms. McKenzie requested Mr. Boyd and Mr. Tarwater to come to the podium.

Mr. Boyd said they had used a standard note on PUDs and site plans that
on-site lighting be no more than 3 foot candles as measured at the property
line. It kept the amount of light leaving the property at a minimum. There
were shielded wall packs and the same would go for parking lot lighting if he
chose to put them on a pole reflecting. It didn’t seem to be an issue to find
fixtures to keep the glares down to a minimum. As Mr. Tarwater said he was not
looking to be a bad neighbor. He wanted to keep things as minimal as possible.

Mr. Beagle asked the type and height of the fencing. Mr. Tarwater wanted
a 4 foot decorative fence. The gates would be included in the fence to open
up. The gates would not be inset so the trucks couldn’t pull in there. He
didn’t want the trucks in there. A sign was already posted to indicate it
wasn’t a truck entrance. He couldn’t police them. They did their own thing
when he wasn’t there. When he was there, he could request them to move. They
wouldn’t allow trucks to park there at night because of the ditch. Where the
concrete covers the ditch, they could.

Mr. Macfee asked if it was
currently fenced along the road the entire length of the property and where the
trucks were parking. Mr. Tarwater said the fence was placed along the entire
length of 4107 and 4109. There was an opening but really it was the shoulder
of the road. If the trucks parked there, sometimes they hung out on the road.
It depended on the truck driver and how respectful they were. They tried to
squeeze in between Topeka Blvd. and the fence. He couldn’t open the gates
until they moved. He didn’t know the drivers or the trucking company. If the
fence was moved back and they did park there, he hoped it would be safer for
the traffic on Topeka Blvd. There would be more room in front. Public Works was
requiring them to move 15 foot roughly past the existing fence now. He would
have to take the existing fence and move it back 15 foot. In doing that he
would lose the existing south driveway which was where they parked a lot of
times. The gate would no longer be there. They would be further off Topeka
Blvd. if they continue to park there.

Mr. Macfee asked if they would
be able to park all along the front of 4019. Mr. Tarwater said they couldn’t
park there because of the ditch. They parked by the north entrance because it
was covered with concrete. Hopefully, it would get better. The car traffic
would be using the north entrance. Mr. Boyd said they were planning to
widen the existing north entrance to allow two‑way traffic. All the
retail traffic would go through the parking lot and circle back out using the
same entrance.

Mr. Tarwater has known the
Tolberts for a long time. The biggest issue to him was the storm water. He also
wanted to know where all the storm water was coming from. It wasn’t all coming
from him but the whole road. He agreed with the Tolberts. There was a lot of
water that went down to that tube. He wished there wasn’t. He wanted to be a
good neighbor. The Tolberts had helped them out tremendously.

Ms. McKenzie asked if Mr. Tarwater
would have issues with them adding the three items to the PUD: the shielded
lighting, 4 foot vinyl fence, gates on the entrances. Mr. Tarwater had no
issues with the additions.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Tarwater to
characterize the product display area. Mr. Tarwater wanted to keep it
grass. It was hard for him to judge until the fence was gone to see what was
there. He was moving the building back because he wanted things further off
the road. And by doing that he would be able to spread it out and keep it
looking nicer, neater and cleaner. There was stuff presently right up by the
road. The gate would be further away off Topeka Blvd.

Ms. McKenzie stated if it was
written in the PUD that the area would remain grass, then it would remain
grass. Mr. Beagle said the PUD set a 30 foot perimeter setback. They could
indicate that in the 30 foot there would be no product display and it shall
remain grass. Ms. McKenzie asked if it was okay to include the language in the
PUD. Mr. Boyd said there wouldn’t be a problem because of the detention
facility. Leaving grass was not an issue at all. Mr. Tarwater said it was
hard for him to visualize it. There was an aspect to the whole project that
was a little different than any place that was in his type of business. It was
the look. He wanted to keep some grass. He didn’t want everything to be
concrete.

Ms. McKenzie asked if that
helped. Mr. Beagle said it would address the issue of appearance and Mr. Tarwater’s
ideal of keeping the area open with grass even though there would be products
displayed on it. He suggested if the PUD Plan was approved with the first 30
feet, then it would have to remain open and grassed. Everything else beyond
that into the interior of the property could be the product display area.

Ms. McKenzie asked if anyone
from the Commission had additional questions on the PUD.

Mr. Macfee wanted to know if it
would place a hardship on Mr. Tarwater if they continued the item. Mr. Tarwater
said the property was purchased 7-8 months ago and it had been a struggle. He
wasn’t going to spend money on a house that was empty. He wanted to clean it
up because it was a mess.

Mr. Boyd stated Mr. Tarwater’s
desire was to have the project under construction and completed by March-April
2017 for the 2017 spring season. In order for that to happen, there was a lot
of work to do. It was a pretty complex site with the new entrance, new truck
entrance, the utilities, the parking lot, etc. As it was, they would be into
August working on design plans. If it was delayed a month, it would be in
September. With the concerns that were expressed, he trusted Mr. Beagle to put
conditions on the PUD that were reasonable. He hadn’t heard anything that
concerned him besides the drainage report. Some items wouldn’t be known until
the design was complete.

Mr. Tolbert expressed his
concern about not having any recourse if the plan was approved and there was a
greater impact with the runoff other than what was stated.

Ms. McKenzie closed the
public hearing and asked for questions/comments from the Commissioners.

Mr. Macfee thought the runoff
seemed to be the item in question. There was some question as to the limit on
what they were able to know and their authority. The other issues could be
worked out. There was a lot of discussion and unknowns about how much grass,
etc. He wished there were more details in the PUD. He thought it would make
everyone more comfortable. At the same time, he didn’t see those as major
problems. The business had been there for decades and Mr. Tarwater had
demonstrated his sincerity about doing everything he could to be a good
neighbor. He wouldn’t vote against the item. He would support a continuance
to firm up some of the details but he wasn’t sure there was a lot. He would
hate to see it denied.

Mr. Smith stated it was the
Commission’s duty to review the seven golden factors and the information that
was presented to make a decision on the proposed plan. Obviously, it was a
very difficult task. There was a lot of uncertainty.

Mr. Beagle added they had the
golden criteria, which is the staff report, to help them make a decision. The
principal question was if this lateral expansion was viewed as an acceptable
type of proposal under the context to the PUD as it was drafted. If they
decided not to expand the extent of commercial zoning, there would be no need
to quibble over the details of the PUD. If they thought that under the PUD
that this was a reasonable request, it would just be a matter of defining the
details.

Mr. Jacques moved to accept the
proposal as prepared by Staff with three caveats: Lighting would be shielded
and not exceed three foot candles to the edge of the property line;
Installation of a four (4) foot vinyl fence that would run the distance of the property
line with gating at the entrances; The expanded area would maintain a 30 foot
grass buffer, seconded by Mr. Appelhanz, and with a vote of 5-0-0, the item was
recommended for Approval.

Mr. Jacques requested
information on the next step regarding the request for those who had concerns.
Mr. Beagle said the request would continue on to the County Commission for a
final decision on Monday, August 1, at 9 a.m. The neighboring property
owners had some additional rights and that information was provided in their
notification letter.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning
Items

There were no comments on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning items.

Discussion of
Planning Related Issues

1.Proposed
2017 Planning Budget

Mr. Beagle presented
the 2017 Planning Department budget request to the Planning Commission. He
stated the 2017 budget request was essentially the same as the 2016 authorized
budget except for additional money placed in the retirement fund for two
retirement eligible staff members. The proposed budget also includes $50,000
for planning projects, the same as 2016, and proposed to be set aside in a
special account for implementation of the comprehensive plan. It is realized
that new zoning and subdivision regulations will need to be drafted to
implement the recommendations of the plan. The $50,000 would go to cover the
cost of extending the contract of the consultant to also prepare new zoning and
subdivision regulations based on the comprehensive plan. Ms. McKenzie was very
pleased to know that money was proposed to be set aside to implement the Plan
so the hard work that everyone was completing would be put into place. Mr.
Beagle stated the budget requests had not yet been approved by the County
Commission.

2.Comprehensive
Plan Update

Ms. McKenzie
asked for information on the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Beagle stated a
public officials’ driving tour was held on June 8th with the
Directors of Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Audit Finance and County
Counselor to look at various sites and issues throughout the county. The
consultant was able to hear directly from them what issues and concerns they
may have and highlight of what was working well. Separate driving tours were also
conducted with each County Commissioner on June 17th. It was well
received by each Commissioner and yielded good information for the consultant.

The initial
twenty-two member steering committee met on June 28th. The working
group will be responsible for: reviewing all drafts, signing off on all public
engagement activities, being a sounding board for the drafts prepared by the
consultant and ensuring the Plan as drafted was incorporating the publics’ comments.

The Planning
Commission would be receiving a Community Survey via email from the consultant
in order to provide input on certain key issues. It would also be sent to the
County Commissioners and steering committee members. It would be a good way to
start the process and identify priorities, issues, needs and concerns.

Eventually a
kick‑off meeting will be held to inform the public about the process.
Following that, focus groups will be defined with various stakeholders in order
to engage them and solicit their input. The ultimate goal was to gather a good
baseline of information from not only the publics’ perception but also seeing
Shawnee County in reality in terms of demographics, population, economics, etc.

3.Additional
Information

The Iona
Doty/Ben Kramer zoning proposal was heard by the County Commission on June 20th.
A protest petition was filed by the neighbors representing 49% of the required
notification area. With that, the County Commission’s vote had to be unanimous
for approval. With a vote of one for approval and two for disapproval, the
item failed.

A Planning
Commission meeting will not be held in August since no cases were filed.

Mr. Desch would
have understood if they were only considering zoning but it was in conjunction
with a PUD. From his knowledge, anything put in a PUD was what the applicant
would be held responsible for. He had concerns about the unknown items. If a
small note needed to be added, he had no concerns. But in this case, there was
no drainage report. He thought that was significant. People had spoke in opposition
and had concerns. He didn’t know if this topic had been discussed. So, next
time he would review the criteria.

Mr. Jacques said
the issue had prompted the question. The plan was designed to have a zero
impact. If that was the only standard the County was going to approve, there
would be no impact. He wasn’t sure the determination of the water plan would
impact their decision if the amount was zero. Each case had a different issue
and it should be questioned. If they had not discussed the water issue, the
people in attendance would have been incredibly frustrated. They would have
said the Commission didn’t care if the water was going to be more or less. If
nothing else, they heard the goal was to be a zero impact.

Mr. Smith
thought it was important to look at the PUD. He found a subsection that noted
information about the lighting and the impact. It was a matter of how specific
they wanted to get. It was important to make sure they were holding people
accountable and the public knew the Planning Commission would do the right
thing and weigh all the factors. They weren’t just considering the plan
itself. Each circumstance was different.

Ms. McKenzie thought
the items they added were things the applicant was going to do anyway and by
putting them in there the next owner would still be required to have a 4 foot
fence. She thought their discussion on truck traffic was good. She thought
the County Commission would read the questions that were asked and know the Planning
Commission had been very thorough.

Mr. Beagle said
the questions raised Mr. Desch were valid. The PUD District regulations provided
general guidance but performance measures were not included, e.g., lighting,
fencing, etc. Any issue could be brought up during public comment. It would
have to be addressed and incorporated as part of their discussion. Also, certain
standards had to be met by other departments and the Commission would know those
would be addressed independent of zoning. In this case, a drainage report was
submitted to the City/County. If there was an issue, it would have been
reported to him that the expansion was going to create off‑site drainage
problems and it would have been included in his report and recommendation. He
had not received notice of an issue with storm water drainage.

Lastly, Mr. Beagle
said it was asked at the last meeting how the Commission should cast motions,
take a vote and how it was represented to the County Commission. Mr. Smith
had reviewed their Bylaws and found they could cast motions either in the
affirmative or the negative. Meetings should be conducted to Robert’s Rules of
Order in all cases where applicable and not inconsistent with the Bylaws. Mr.
Smith thought what they were doing presently was fine; however, Robert’s Rules
of Order did say that votes should be in the affirmative. The affirmative vote
would go to the County Commission whether a motion was passed or not. It would
be consistent with how the County Commission voted and would transition a
little easier.

Adjournment:

Mr. Desch moved to adjourn, seconded
by Mr. Appelhanz. A unanimous voice vote declared the public hearing be
adjourned, which was at 8:17 p.m.